Fox News Eats Its Own

The Republican National Committee triumphantly seized control of the debates last year, saying it would not allow a repeat of 2012, when “the liberal media interrogated our candidates on issues that were often not a priority to most Americans. … We need more conservatives … in the moderator’s chair.”

But what was a play to keep their candidates safe inside a conservative cocoon now looks like a trap. The first Republican presidential debate will air on Fox News and will be moderated by Bret Baier, Megyn Kelly and Chris Wallace—who happen to be the same three anchors that have provoked three Republican candidates into embarrassing gaffes this month. Turns out Fox News’ anchors can make Republican candidates look just as bad as MSNBC’s.

The RNC sought to install more “conservatives in the moderator’s chair” because conservatives still are nursing grudges against some of the 2012 primary debate moderators. When ABC’s George Stephanopoulos pressed Mitt Romney on whether “states have the right to ban contraception,” conservatives blamed the “liberal media” for asking an irrelevant question. When CNN’s John King opened a debate by asking Newt Gingrich about allegations leveled by his ex-wife, Gingrich brought the crowd to its feet by chastising King and lambasting “the elite media protecting Barack Obama by attacking Republicans.”

At least in those instances, Republicans could try the “blame the media” strategy to limit the damage. This year, when Republicans shoot themselves in the foot on the debate stage, they won’t have that option.

The recent gaffes on Fox News by Republican candidates are not because Fox News journalists are suddenly out to get Republicans. It’s because even a softball question can trip up a candidate not ready for prime time. Megyn Kelly’s interview of Jeb Bush was the journalistic equivalent of a warm hug. Her simple Iraq question—“Knowing what we know now, would you have authorized the invasion?”—was only a couple of notches tougher than Katie Couric’s “What newspapers and magazines did you regularly read?”

After Jeb’s initial answer, which skipped past the hindsight premise, Kelly conversationally and neutrally asked for a clarification, “You don't think it was a mistake?” When Jeb was done, she breezily moved on to a new line of questioning well-suited for Fox: “Do you feel that America's place in the world has diminished under President Obama?”

But Fox News teased the Iraq clip before the full interview aired, sparking a media firestorm. Rivals Chris Christie and Ted Cruz, both fervent hawks, jumped in front of the microphone to proclaim they would not have invaded. Influential conservative radio talker Laura Ingraham was incredulous: “You have to have [a nominee] who says, ‘Look, I’m a Republican but I’m not an idiot … I learn from the past.’”

Trying to clean up his mess a couple of days later, Bush ran to what should have been safe ground, Fox News’ Sean Hannity. The host functioned less as a journalist than as a friend helping a friend in need. He first suggested “the media” interpreted Bush wrong and so “I wanted to see if I could clarify that.” After Bush failed to actually clarify, Hannity threw him a second lifeline, “So in other words, with 20/20 hindsight, you would make a different decision.” Bush whiffed the softball, saying, “I don’t know what that decision would have been.”

Unlike the Kelly and Hannity chats, Chris Wallace’s recent interview with Marco Rubio was truly aggressive. He wouldn’t let up over Rubio’s abandonment of the Senate immigration bill for which he voted: “You bailed on comprehensive immigration reform. … Aren't leaders supposed to shape public opinion rather than just follow it? … Shouldn't you have campaigned for this?” He also busted Rubio for a “dramatic shift” in his foreign policy rhetoric, backing off his 2012 support for Iran negotiations and forgoing earlier assurances he was “not a saber-rattling person.”

And those barbs were just the warm-up for the three-minute raking over Iraq. As Wallace bore into Rubio’s varying responses, the unprepared Senate freshman dug himself into a hole by pleading semantic differences regarding questions about whether Iraq was a mistake and whether he’d have invaded knowing what we know now. Relentless, Wallace asked Rubio about seven times “Was it a mistake?” And he refused to let Rubio answer it with caveats, cutting him off with “I'm not asking you that.”

If Wallace were not working for Rupert Murdoch, the loaded questions, opinionated assertions and repeated interruptions would earn Wallace a lifetime membership in the Liberal Media Elite Club.

You can expect Wallace to be similarly unforgiving at the inaugural debate. In fact it was four Augusts ago when Wallace was the foil for Gingrich’s first public haranguing of a debate moderator. (He did not care for what he called a “gotcha question”: “How do you respond to people who say that your campaign has been a mess so far?”) Gingrich was not alone. Wallace dredged up Mitt Romney’s record of layoffs and Herman Cain’s litany of amateurish remarks. Candidates who expect to get a free ride from Wallace will quickly become debate roadkill.

Steeling for Wallace is one thing. The trickier challenge Republicans may face is the unassuming Bret Baier. Consider how he tripped up Scott Walker earlier this month.

Back in March, Walker bluntly renounced his past support for giving undocumented immigrants a pathway to citizenship in a Fox News interview with Wallace: “My view has changed. I'm flat out saying it.”

Baier picked up the thread in as magnanimous a fashion as possible, telling Walker: “You’ve admitted that you’ve changed your position on immigration. People understand that in the context of President Obama’s executive action, and why you might do that."

Following a question about Walker’s more recent statements about restricting legal immigration, Baier returned to the policy shift, with a little more english: “If you’re willing to flip-flop, for [lack] of a better word, on such an important issue like this, how can voters be sure that you’re not going to change your position on some other big issue?” But Baier’s tone was still friendly, and Walker glibly responded, “There’s not a flip out there.” His past comments were made when he was in executive branch positions, and in Walker’s dictionary, “A flip would be someone who voted on something and did something different, and these are not votes.”

Despite Walker redefining “flip-flop” to render out of bounds any utterance made by politicians outside of the legislative branch, Baier let it lie and moved on to the next topic. But other observers picked up on it, including conservatives like National Review editor Eliana Johnson, who sensed that “He doesn’t even look quite serious as he’s saying it,” and Daily Caller writer Matt Lewis, who said “This is almost a Clinton-esque ability to spin.”

If Baier lulled Walker into letting down his guard and believing he could get away with undercooked talking points while inside the friendly confines of Fox, that may have been Baier’s plan. In 2011, after Baier got under Mitt Romney’s skin by asking about flip-flops, POLITICO profiled Baier’s interview style: “A Republican consultant … called Baier ‘a Boy Scout with a very sharp knife … He lulls [interviewees] into a false sense of security … He’s the most gentle of all the anchors on cable, but he’s tougher. People let their guard down.’”

But it’s not just Baier who makes Republicans too comfortable for their own good. The entire Fox News operation can feel like a Republican clubhouse. Instead of preparing for a high-stakes interview, candidates act like they’re coming over for a drink. In turn, they don’t prepare tight answers for predictable questions. They offer weak spin, thinking (often correctly) the Fox News umpires won’t directly call them on it and the average Fox News viewer will be forgiving toward a home team player.

The problem is that sometimes a Fox News anchor can surprise (the New York Times Magazine published a profile centered on such “Megyn moments”). Even if the anchor doesn’t, any embarrassing video clip can go viral and go beyond the Fox News audience. And considering that Republican primary voters aren’t sold on any presidential possibility—no one cleared 15 percent in the latest Fox News poll—perhaps the candidates should assume that even the reddest Tea Partier wants to see them put through their paces.

It’s worth recalling that the subtle Baier ensnared the entire Republican field four years ago. At an August 2011 debate, another panelist asked a candidate if there was “any ratio of [spending] cuts to taxes that you would accept” in a bipartisan budget compromise. Baier is the one who sharpened the hypothetical and put it to everyone: “Can you raise your hand if you feel so strongly about not raising taxes, you'd walk away on the 10-to-1 deal?”

Everyone raised their hand. And why not? In Baier’s Fox-friendly premise, it was proof that “you feel so strongly about not raising taxes.” But outside the building, the spectacle solidified the image of a party incapable of compromise.

That’s what the 10 Republicans who make the cut and are allowed on the debate stage really need to guard against. It’s easy to tell when a Chris Wallace fastball is aimed at your head. But the candidates need to be careful not to swing too quickly when what looks like a softball is lobbed over the plate.

One thing is for sure. If the RNC and the presidential candidates thought beginning its debate season on Fox News would be like spring training, the recent spate of gaffes committed on Fox News should be a wake-up call that everyone needs to get into shape a lot faster.

Bill Scher is the senior writer at the Campaign for America’s Future, and co-host of the Bloggingheads.tv show “The DMZ” along with the Daily Caller’s Matt Lewis.